you have the numbers, you can calculate what happens to the steem's value if we let people pour in their money but take the majority of the reward generated by their SP.
there might be less rewards, but the value of that less reward will be higher, there will be less spam, less self voting and more quality posts and more quality curation.
I personally think you may be describing assumptions as if they are guarantees. Once the incentive model changes, user behavior will change as well.
Increasing curation rewards is certainly a possibility and it has been discussed. It may be part of a solution to improve things. It also isn't a perfect solution as many investors aren't spending their day curation content. It also means more of the rewards pool goes to those who already have a huge stake (curation rewards are negligible for small accounts, but significant for larger ones). That might further increase the divide between the haves and have nots which comes with its own problems.
I don't see why investors need to spend time reading content in order for the cryptocurrency token they invested in to go up in value and increase their holdings. If anything, the social media side of Steemit may confuse investors away from understanding the true value of STEEM, as I explained here.
there's only one reason to invest in anything, and that is more money. people want to maximize their profit and minimize their work.
make it easy to profit, more investors come in
start attacking people who self-vote and they will cash out
the only solution is to make curating benefits more than self voting, I can only think of one way to achieve it. is there any other way?
Why did you edit? Now I’ll have to go hunt down the original on the blockchain.
I disagree about old posts having no value. They are tremendously valuable to me and they save me plenty of time.
you have the numbers, you can calculate what happens to the steem's value if we let people pour in their money but take the majority of the reward generated by their SP.
there might be less rewards, but the value of that less reward will be higher, there will be less spam, less self voting and more quality posts and more quality curation.
I personally think you may be describing assumptions as if they are guarantees. Once the incentive model changes, user behavior will change as well.
Increasing curation rewards is certainly a possibility and it has been discussed. It may be part of a solution to improve things. It also isn't a perfect solution as many investors aren't spending their day curation content. It also means more of the rewards pool goes to those who already have a huge stake (curation rewards are negligible for small accounts, but significant for larger ones). That might further increase the divide between the haves and have nots which comes with its own problems.
I don't see why investors need to spend time reading content in order for the cryptocurrency token they invested in to go up in value and increase their holdings. If anything, the social media side of Steemit may confuse investors away from understanding the true value of STEEM, as I explained here.
there's only one reason to invest in anything, and that is more money. people want to maximize their profit and minimize their work.
make it easy to profit, more investors come in
start attacking people who self-vote and they will cash out
the only solution is to make curating benefits more than self voting, I can only think of one way to achieve it. is there any other way?